↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
137 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
244 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
642 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002892.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jani H Ruotsalainen, Jos H Verbeek, Albert Mariné, Consol Serra

Abstract

Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work. This may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision. To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health.There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction), and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias, and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels. More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 137 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 642 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 632 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 137 21%
Student > Bachelor 79 12%
Researcher 79 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 57 9%
Other 122 19%
Unknown 99 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 163 25%
Psychology 112 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 107 17%
Social Sciences 42 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 3%
Other 83 13%
Unknown 117 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2021.
All research outputs
#183,706
of 17,601,811 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#352
of 11,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,856
of 233,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,601,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.